Objective To examine the providers’ perceptions and experiences on implementation of video review (VR) of procedures in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).
Design Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with neonatal care providers about their experiences with VR. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed using the data analysis software Atlas.ti V.22.2.
Setting Providers working in the NICU of the Leiden University Medical Center were interviewed during implementation of VR.
Results In total, 28 NICU staff members were interviewed. The interviewed providers appreciated VR and valued the focus on a safe learning environment. Five overarching themes were identified: (1) added value: providers reported that VR is a powerful tool for reflection on daily practice and serves as a magnifying glass on practice, provides a helicopter view and VR with nursing and medical staff together led to new insights and was seen as highly valuable; (2) preconditions and considerations: the existing culture of trust on the NICU positively influenced providers’ perception; (3) adjustment: it was recommended to first let providers attend a VR session, before being recorded; (4) experiences with VR: suggestions were made by the providers regarding the preparation and organisation of VR and the role of the chair; (5) embedding VR: providers considered how to embed VR on the long-term while maintaining a safe learning environment and provided suggestions for expanding.
Conclusion Neonatal care providers appreciated the use of VR and provided viewpoints on how to implement VR successfully, which were used to develop a roadmap with recommendations.
- qualitative research
- intensive care units, neonatal
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Twitter @heza01, @None
Contributors VH, ABtP and RSW had full access to all data in the study and took responsibility for the integrity of the data. Data collection was performed by VH. Data analysis was performed by VH and RSW. The first draft of the manuscript was written by VH and all authors participated in critical revision of the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Funding ABtP is a recipient of a ZonMw Safety-II grant (projectnr: 10130022010001).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.